From Newsgroup: talk.origins

A 2012 favourite is "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)". Here's a more
recent affirmation of the same problems:

"Nevertheless, doubts remain surrounding the chemical evolution of an
RNA world, whose classical scenario is based on a temporal sequence of nucleotide formation, enzyme-free polymerisation/replication,
recombination, encapsulation in lipid vesicles (or other compartments), evolution of ribozymes and finally the innovation of the genetic code
and its translation (Figure 1) [2,3]. Common criticisms are that RNA is
too complex to emerge de novo in a prebiotic environment, that catalysis
is a relatively rare property of RNA and requires implausibly long
strands, that the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited and that it
is difficult to envisage scenarios in which precursors and feedstocks
occurred at sufficient concentrations to allow replication and evolution."

From "The difficult case of an RNA-only origin of life" https://portlandpress.com/emergtoplifesci/article/3/5/469/220563/The-difficult-case-of-an-RNA-only-origin-of-life

Alternatives such as "proteins first", "RNA-peptide world", "messy
world" etc attempt to work around these problems. Regardless, we need
some form of information-bearing, self-copying and self-catalyzing
molecule or system. If not RNA, then what? DNA? PNA, TNA, or chemical chimeras? Similar problems.

The 2026 paper "Autogenesis: An Alternative Path to Molecular
Information" reiterates the RNA world problems in detail, and offers a peptides-first / peptide-RNA "autogen" alternative (suggestive only, not empirical). It concedes that "This autogenic account of the origin of molecular information does not, of course, provide any direct insight
into the evolutionary processes that led to the creation and
stabilization of the genetic code. Nor does it even hint at how
nucleotide sequences could have come to correspond to amino acid sequences." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-025-00528-1

______

"Whoa-hoh-oh, the gaps are gettin' bigger
Yeah-eah, mmm they're gettin' bigger"
(with apologies to Mental As Anything)



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 4/16/2026 6:01 PM, MarkE wrote:

A 2012 favourite is "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)". Here's a more
recent affirmation of the same problems:

"Nevertheless, doubts remain surrounding the chemical evolution of an
RNA world, whose classical scenario is based on a temporal sequence of nucleotide formation, enzyme-free polymerisation/replication,
recombination, encapsulation in lipid vesicles (or other compartments), evolution of ribozymes and finally the innovation of the genetic code
and its translation (Figure 1) [2,3]. Common criticisms are that RNA is
too complex to emerge de novo in a prebiotic environment, that catalysis
is a relatively rare property of RNA and requires implausibly long
strands, that the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited and that it
is difficult to envisage scenarios in which precursors and feedstocks occurred at sufficient concentrations to allow replication and evolution."

From "The difficult case of an RNA-only origin of life" https://portlandpress.com/emergtoplifesci/article/3/5/469/220563/The- difficult-case-of-an-RNA-only-origin-of-life

Alternatives such as "proteins first", "RNA-peptide world", "messy
world" etc attempt to work around these problems. Regardless, we need
some form of information-bearing, self-copying and self-catalyzing
molecule or system. If not RNA, then what? DNA? PNA, TNA, or chemical chimeras? Similar problems.

The 2026 paper "Autogenesis: An Alternative Path to Molecular
Information" reiterates the RNA world problems in detail, and offers a peptides-first / peptide-RNA "autogen" alternative (suggestive only, not empirical). It concedes that "This autogenic account of the origin of molecular information does not, of course, provide any direct insight
into the evolutionary processes that led to the creation and
stabilization of the genetic code. Nor does it even hint at how
nucleotide sequences could have come to correspond to amino acid
sequences."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-025-00528-1

______

"Whoa-hoh-oh, the gaps are gettin' bigger
Yeah-eah, mmm they're gettin' bigger"
(with apologies to Mental As Anything)

You have been repeatedly told that no one knows what the first self replicating molecules were made of. They did not have to be RNA nor
protein. There is no reason to believe that the RNA phase of life had
to evolve without enzymatic synthesis of nucleotides and polymers. The
first self replicators did not have to be RNA polymers, and they could
have other enzymatic abilities besides making more of themselves. My
take is that originally life depended on multifunctional self
replicating molecules. All the evidence points to there being an RNA
phase in the evolution of life on earth. Until the genetic code evolved
to make specific proteins ribozymes were likely the best structural and enzymatic molecules in the early cells. The first cells could have
evolved RNA polymers to help them exist and replicate more efficiently.
That is all the RNA world needed to get started. Once the RNA world
existed the genetic code could evolve.

No matter how the origin of life gap is filled you lose. Stupid
senseless denial isn't going to change reality.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2